[DiogenesLamp]

The video says nothing about what the war was about. It, in a humorous way, shows the hypocrisy of confederate civil war reenacters.

No it doesn't. It shows what subsequent propagandists want to promote as the hypocrisy of confederate civil war reenacters. In that era and that culture, slavery was a given, and they didn't focus on it when their soldiers talked about why they were fighting. They talked of hearth and home, of family, of loyalty, or defending their homeland.

The hypocrisy of the Union in keeping slavery for six months longer than the Confederacy is seldom mentioned, and never made the butt of jokes, even though it is a far more glaring hypocrisy.

As far as your deluded opinions go I’ve had enough.

You've invested a lot of your life in believing that the people who you have always been told are the "good guys" really were the good guys, and you don't want to hear any proof or evidence that they were in fact the tools of despotism and empire from the same people we as conservatives are still fighting today.

People just want to believe what they want to believe, and for you to ever change, you will have to be bugged by facts that don't make any sense, the same way I was for many years.

Anyone who has studied the history of this country realizes that slavery was a problem from the beginning.

But it wasn't why the Union went to war with the South. When you remove the "slavery" reason for going to war, what do you have left? How is what is left able to justify what happened?

But the southern fire eaters rebelled due to slavery and your twisting of facts will not change that.

Here is an example of one of those facts I mentioned above, that does not make any sense. Lincoln promised them slavery. They already had slavery. The Union kept slavery all through the war. How were they going to "rebel" over slavery?

I'm untwisting the facts. You can't claim people rebelled over something they already had, and something which would have continued to be protected had they not rebelled. To claim they rebelled over this does not make any sense.

Because without the civil war I believe slavery would have lasted in this country well into the 20th century.

Well duh. This is why I say it is the height of dishonesty to ignore the fact that the Union could not legally abolish slavery, and so slavery cannot honestly be claimed as the reason for attacking the South.

You also gloss over the dubious legality of abolishing it, ignoring evidence of the Lincoln government far exceeding it's constitutional authority to do such a thing. You like the result, and so you are willing to overlook the constitutional violations necessary to do it.

Why is the constitution important when it is used to achieve a result you want, (Justifying an invasion over the claim of "rebellion") but unimportant when it goes against a result you want? (Preventing the abolition of slavery.)

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "The hypocrisy of the Union in keeping slavery for six months longer than the Confederacy is seldom mentioned, and never made the butt of jokes, even though it is a far more glaring hypocrisy."

Your sensitivity to Northern "hypocrisy" is touching, very touching. </sarc>
And now you've now repeated your little insanity several times, just as if it was true and important.
It's neither.

1. By 1860 all Northern states, without exception, fully abolished slavery, voluntarily.

2. By 1860 no Southern state was even seriously considering voluntary abolition.

3. By early 1861 eleven slave-states declared secession, Confederacy and war on the United States, five slave-states remained loyal to the Union.

4. The US Constitution protected slavery in Union states, but not in states or regions in rebellion.
   So, in 1862 President Lincoln lawfully emancipated slaves of rebel Confederates as "contraband", enabling their service to the Union, including as volunteer colored troops (175 regiments = 180,000 men).
   But Lincoln had no constitutional power to emancipate slaves of loyal Americans, short of constitutional amendment, the 13th which Lincoln helped pass and was ratified in December 1865.

5. Confederate surrenders began at Appomattox CH on April 9, 1865 and continued -- over a dozen in total -- for months, the last for troops on June 23, 1865.
   On August 20, 1866 Democrat President Johnson declared the insurrection over.

6. In the mean time, by April 14, 1865, the 13th Amendment was ratified by 21 states, including Southern states of Maryland (loyal), West Virginia (loyal), Missouri (loyal), Virginia (Confederate), Louisiana (Conf.), Tennessee (Conf.) & Arkansas (Conf.).
   By December six more former Confederates ratified, including South Carolina, Alabama, North Carolina & Georgia, thus confirming the Amendment, making it the Law of the Land.

7. In Union Kentucky about two-thirds of slaves were already freed before December 1865, the balance, around 82,000 were freed by 13th Amendment.
   In Union Delaware, about half slaves were already freed before December 1865, the balance, around 900 were freed by 13th Amendment.
   These numbers mean that 98% of slaves were already emancipated before final ratification of the 13th Amendment.

8. In future years the nine hold-out states also formally ratified, including Florida (C), Texas (C), Delaware (loyal), Kentucky (loyal: 1976) & Mississippi (C. 1995).

In summary:

1. By 1860 every Northern state had long since peacefully abolished slavery.
   
2. By April 14, 1865 seven slave-states ratified abolition, 13th amendment.
   
3. By July 1865 all seven Confederate states which had not yet ratified the 13th, had Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation forced on them.
   
4. By December 1865 abolition (13th Amendment) became the Law of the Land, including all loyal slave-states.
   
5. Three Confederate states and two loyal slave-states were forced the accept the 13th, despite not ratifying it by December 1865.
   All eventually did ratify.

So DiogenesLamp's often repeated claim of "hypocrisy" is just ludicrous.